Connect with us

Alternative News

Did You Notice The Blue Ribbons & Other Political Stunts At The Oscars?

Published

on

I love watching movies and, although I’m not really into award shows or the whole “Hollywood scene,” I decided to watch the Oscars last night. To my dismay, I found that it was less about the movies and more about American politics.

advertisement - learn more

Everyone seems to love bashing Trump, so much so that you cannot turn on your television or listen to your radio anymore without being bombarded by propaganda. Don’t get me wrong — I do not support Trump. In fact, I don’t support either side, since both the right wing and the left wing are ultimately a part of the same bird, as the saying goes. I’ve simply noticed a trend lately amongst mainstream media and the public in general, which is that there’s no escape from U.S. politics, and to me this was evident at the Oscars.

-->Watch now: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting and hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!

Oscars Acceptance Speeches That Turned Political

If you watched the Oscars this year, you can probably think of numerous examples of propaganda during the show. Let’s start with some of the quotes from the infamous host, Jimmy Kimmel. One of the first things he said was that CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, “and any other ‘Times,’ for that matter” weren’t invited to the Oscars; a clear dig at Trump’s decision to block several mainstream media outlets from attending the White House briefing.

“This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us,” he said.

“If every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives but as Americans — if we all did that it would make America great again. It starts with us,” said Kimmel.

Kimmel makes a great point: We shouldn’t be arguing over which side is correct, but rather coming together as equals. And this doesn’t just apply to Americans; we are all a part of a global community and we all feed the collective quantum field.

advertisement - learn more

“I mean, remember last year,” continued Kimmel, “when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” Kimmel was referring to the controversial Oscars award show last year, as the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went viral after absolutely no actors of colour were nominated, and for the second year in a row. The blame was probably in part due to prejudices, but the Academy isn’t entirely to blame. During this century, minority actors have only secured 15% of the top roles, so there really isn’t a wide variety of leading actors of colour to nominate.

Let’s not forget how the Oscars work. We don’t vote for our favourite films and actors — the 6,028 Academy Award members do. At the time, 94% of the voters were white, predominantly men, and were an average of 63 years old. It’s not hard to imagine how prejudices could manipulate the votes.

It wasn’t just Jimmy Kimmel who used his position as an opportunity to discuss politics. An overwhelming amount of people used their speeches to share their opinions, too. Although I questioned some of their motives, I do think it’s incredible that people are using their star power to try to create change and voice their opinions! However, whether that’s positive change or what their motives were, who knows.

The Best Documentary was awarded to Ezra Edelman for O. J. Simpson: Made in America, which to me was fairly shocking because it was up against some incredible documentaries, including 13th, which I wrote a CE article about last year. Edelman dedicated his award to victims of police brutality and racially motivated violence, which was a beautiful tribute, as this is a severely overlooked issue.

The presenter for Best Animated Feature Film, Gael García Bernal, voiced that he was “against any form of wall that wants to separate us.” Again, this is another beautiful declaration of equality, but a clear reference to Trump.

The winner of The White Helmets, a documentary about the Syrian conflict, even read a quote from the Koran. This award was extremely questionable, as the White Helmets have a fairly controversial reputation. The organization has received $100 million worth of funding by the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and other states.

They claim to be saving civilians in Eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one over there has heard of them. They also claim to be neutral, yet they’ve been photographed carrying guns and standing around the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. You can watch Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett further discuss the White Helmets at a United Nations talk here (starting around 15 minutes into the video).

“Through the White Helmets we are seeing the eradication of Syrian state institutions and the implanting of a Syrian shadow state by predominantly the UK, the US and supported by EU governments,” explains Vanessa Beeley, independent researcher and journalist. Yet, for some reason, the Academy deemed this organization worthy of receiving an award for their documentary.

Italian-born Alessandro Bertolazzi dedicated his makeup award for Suicide Squad to “all the immigrants.” And in what she referred to as “a small sign of solidarity,” director Ava DuVernay declared that she was wearing a gown by a designer from a majority Muslim country.

This year marked the first year in Oscar history where six black actors were nominated for awards, a record for the Academy. Viola Davis won Best Supporting Actress for her role in Fences and a Muslim man won Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali, for Moonlight). Perhaps the most shocking move was when the Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose The Salesman was awarded Best Foreign-Language Film, boycotted the entire ceremony, refusing to attend in protest of Trump’s ban on Muslim travellers.

Someone read his acceptance speech, however, which was essentially a long-winded political statement: “Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression.”

These wars are largely the result of previous presidents funding them, yet no one spoke out about them in past award ceremonies. And no one mentioned the role the Obama administration played in funding ISIS and the Syrian war; it was just people addressing racist quotes and proposed policies from Trump. While I am thrilled that celebrities are using their fame to make a difference, at this point in the show, I started questioning whether or not the Academy was choosing the best films or the best opportunities to deliver political speeches.

Even the conclusion of the Oscars reminded me of the U.S. election. If you didn’t watch the awards show, it ended with La La Land being accidentally presented with the most significant award of the night for Best Picture. As it turned out, Moonlight had actually won, so during their acceptance speeches, the producer grabbed the microphone and explained the mix-up.

This strangely reminded me of the U.S. election. Everyone was so confident that Hillary Clinton would win, given her strong ties to the elite and the White House; however, Trump surprised all of us and is now the President of the United States. La La Land was presumed to win this award, actually accepted it, and then it was taken away from them. Could this have been pre-planned by the Academy as a symbol of the recent U.S. election results? It might be a stretch, but at this point, who knows?

So, What About Those Blue Ribbons? 

You may have noticed numerous celebrities sporting blue ribbons on their dresses and suits. The blue ribbons represent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-profit organization whose chief aim is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Nominees, presenters, musicians, and guests at the Oscars were allegedly encouraged to wear the ribbon to stand in solidarity for equal rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Although this is an incredible statement, I question whether this was simply another political stunt encouraged by the elite.

Although ACLU seems like a well-intended non-profit, I can’t help but question their motives, especially given their ties to elitist George Soros, a key member of the shadow government disguised as a philanthropic billionaire.

Ever since ACLU started filing lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, the non-profit has received a massive tidal wave in contributions. According to the Washington Post, the lawsuits filed by the ACLU caused their amount of donations to skyrocket, totalling over $24 million in one weekend, which is approximately six times the organization’s average annual donations. This is not to say that I support Trump’s drastic decisions, since I am a staunch advocate for equality and democracy. However, the U.S. has not been living democratically for quite some time, and this is starting to raise some real red flags.

Many of the ACLU’s lawsuits were directly funded by George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general. Soros’s Open Society Institute has donated over $35 million to the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations willing to file lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies. This seems like a well-intended philanthropic move, but if you know anything about George Soros, it’s safe to assume that his donations are strategic political moves to inspire chaos so he can profit from the wreckage.

Soros is well-known for his ties to the Ukrainian conflict and for creating and funding the Black Lives Matter and Women’s March movements. These movements appear to be rooted in equality but then they instil fear and manipulate us into fighting against each other, creating even more separation and division. In my opinion, this same trend was starting to play out at the Oscars.

People are so obsessed with taking a side: left or right, conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, and then we allow this to divide us even further. We forget that, regardless of our opinions, we are still all fundamentally connected to one another. All of this separatism is an illusion, and the more we play into that, even if you think you’re fighting for “the right side,” the more divided we become.

What Can We Learn From This Year’s Oscars? 

Although the Oscars were probably once about the films, I think that it’s transitioned into something much bigger and broader. Now, it’s more so about the fashion, symbolism, pop culture, celebrities, speeches, and, apparently, politics.

I think that these awards shows in general should be more about art than anything else. The beauty in art is that it connects us all, regardless of our political opinions, race, etc. These events could serve as a platform for us to all come together and celebrate the beauty in expression and human creativity. I believe art should be shared and celebrated, not manipulated and used for a political agenda.

I do believe that there was still a lot of light that shined through the award show. Clearly many individuals are passionate about equality and creating positive change and felt the need to speak out about it, which is beautiful! In a way, this was a testament to how much people want equality. Let’s just hope that society’s newfound passion for equality doesn’t turn into another form of division by creating another radical, one-sided party.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Our Biology Responds To Events Before They Even Happen

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple experiments have shown strong evidence for precognition in several different ways. One of them comes in the form of activity within the heart and the brain responding to events before they even happen.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we have extra human capacities we are unaware of? Perhaps we can learn them, develop them, and use them for good. Perhaps when the human race is ready, we will start learning more.

Is precognition real? There are many examples suggesting that yes, it is. The remote viewing program conducted by the CIA in conjunction with Stanford University was a good example of that.  After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate:

To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions. (source)

The kicker? Part of remote viewing involves peering into future events as well as events that happened in the past.

It’s not only within the Department of Defense that we find this stuff, but a lot of science is emerging on this subject as well.

For example, a study (meta analysis) published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to the event before it has occurred. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.

A few years ago, the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin, visited the scientists over at HearthMath Institute and shared the results of one of his studies. Radin is also one of multiple scientists who authored the paper above. These studies, as mentioned above, tracked the autonomic nervous system, physiological changes, etc.

Scientists at HeartMath Institute (HMI) added more protocols, which included measuring participants’ brain waves (EEG), their hearts’ electrical activity (ECG), and their heart rate variability (HRV).

As HMI explains:

Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.

Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.

The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.

The Results

The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.

How mind-altering is that?

Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”

Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989 examined a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved individuals’ attempts to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.” These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (source)

It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (source)

The Takeaway

“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
 Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)

We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings.  It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn and grow from these studies, they can help us better ourselves and others.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The 5G Health Summit Starts Tomorrow (June 1st) – Reserve Your Free Spot Here

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A global online summit featuring doctors, scientists & activists addressing the health concerns of 5G technology and what people can do about it is set to take place the first week of June and it's free to sign up.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are safety concerns that've been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals called a "conspiracy theory?" Why is this idea ridiculed? Why don't our federal health regulatory agencies simply to some health safety testing before rolling it out?

Some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and activists are gathering for a free online summit that begins on Monday June 1st and will run for approximately one week. The summit will dive into the health concerns of 5G technology, and why it’s a concern and what people can do about it. The summit is completely free to sign up and watch, and you can do so here.

We’ve also put together an E-book titled “Is 5G Safe? An Easy to Understand Guide” summarizing the published peer-reviewed research that is raising concerns about electromagnetic radiation that’s emitted from our favourite wireless devices, cell phones and more, as well as novel 5G technology.  It’s a great resource that you can share with family or friends who desire to look at the proof, research, evidence and concerns that thousands of doctors and scientists have been and are creating awareness about all over the globe.  We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual.

Once you sign up for the summit, you get access to the free E-book.

It’s quite strange that any researched journalist could dismiss the health concerns of 5G technology, as well as 4G and 3G, when there are nearly 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies that raise cause for concern. A study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology, explaining how there is no safety testing, and that in vivo and in vitro studies regarding this type of technology and it’s predecessors have shown that it’s harmful to human health, even at levels below current “safety” limits.

At the end of the day, whether you believe this type of technology is safe or you don’t, would it not be in the best interests of everybody to have the  technology go through some type of required safety testing? Shouldn’t any technology that has any sort of biological effect be put through safety testing? Why has there not been any safety testing?

In December 2018, US. Senator Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At  a hearing, that took place last year, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and did the same thing to other industry representatives that were in attendance for not putting the technology through safety testing. You can watch a clip of that hearing and read more about it, here.

How can our federal health regulatory agencies approve products that are clearly a cause for concern?

This is why the summit is going to be such a great resource. It will answer many questions, and again, let people know what they can do about it!

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world’s leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Dr. Buttar Reveals Declassified Government Report Related to 5G Dangers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Rashid Butter discusses a declassified report on millimetre wave technology and the effects it has on human health. These are the same waves used in 5G technology.

  • Reflect On:

    If we already know these waves cause harm to human health, why do we use them in airport scanners? Why are we about to roll out an entire wireless network based on these technologies?

People often say 5G hasn’t been tested, and to some extent that is true. But given 5G uses millimetre wave technology and that technology has been studied for quite some time, it has obviously been tested by those who have worked on them. So why hasn’t this information been widely released? Why are we not looking at the available data on millimetre wave technology as it relates to 5G?

Recently we came across 7 Russian studies that were summarized in a report declassified through the CIA. These studies were declassified in 2012 and marked “For Goverment Use Only.” From what you can gather very quickly in this report, the conclusions should shut down 5G rollout instantly. At least until someone can show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this technology is safe.

Let’s have a quick look at how this report was concluded:

“Thus the conducted investigations indicate high biological activity and an unfavourable influence of millimeter radiowaves on the organism. The expression of the biological reactions increased with an increase of the period of iridation and depended on individual characteristics of the organism.”

What this translates to in plain English is, millimetre-wave frequencies do affect the human body negatively, and the longer the exposure, the more damage that occurs. Since 5G uses millimetre waves and is set to push a constant barrage of frequency on humans anywhere they go, this would mean sustained wave exposure, and thus inevitable biological damage.

Incredibly, these are the same wave technologies used in airport fully body scanners that we have been raising awareness about for years. It’s important to note, you CAN opt out of going through those scanners.

Dr. Rashid Buttar has given an incredible interview where he goes page by page as to exactly what this declassified CIA research reveals. The report summarizes 7 studies on the effects of millimeter-wave radiation levels between 37-60GHz. These levels are “safe” according to government, but that is NOT what the science says.

As we have said for the last year and a half, now is a potent time to understand the dangers of 5G and work to stop its rollout. This interview is a must listen. Click here to watch Dr. Rashid Buttar’s interview.


Scroll down the page when you register and you will see Dr. Buttar’s interview.

As we can tell in our world right now, a ton of truth is coming to the surface, the environment to create change is ripe. If we can stay grounded, in our hearts and avoid descending into hate, we can TRULY make a big difference here.

Watch Now Free: The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up now and start watching today's interviews before they are gone. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!